Lord Haskins argues that the creation of a retail ombudsman would be one way to ensure supermarkets are seen to deal fairly with their suppliers and respond to their legitimate complaints.
Farmer, consumer and environmentalist pressure groups question whether British supermarkets are operating against the public's interest. Farmers complain about their buying power, consumer groups are concerned about limited choice and high prices and environmentalists argue that national supermarkets use too much transport because intensive farming methods have undermined local shopping and, therefore local communities. Yet the OFT seems to be relaxed about supermarkets. Why?
The reality is that most British shoppers like using supermarkets because of their convenience, range of goods, perceived value and quality. For many the weekly shopping trip is exciting, and for others one-stop shopping suits their busy lifestyle. But for most, the choice of supermarket is limited  they tend to use the one that is nearest.
There is also a suspicion that UK prices are higher than those in countries like France and Germany but supermarkets argue this is because of high British property costs.
I have seen many examples of unscrupulous behaviour by supermarket buyers but this usually arises because they can exploit attractive offers from competing suppliers. Supermarkets have been fiendishly clever in ensuring their supply is in excess of their needs.
Supermarkets cast their net very wide in developing their supply side and this can lead to unnecessary distribution. One of the reasons for the excessive movement of livestock in Britain, a factor in the spread of last year's foot and mouth outbreak, is that some supermarkets have insisted on designating their own abattoirs, resulting in animals being moved from one end of the country to the other for slaughter. But if all our food was still sold through local shops, requiring small van daily delivery, the distribution cost and environmental damage would be far greater.
The government can address some of these concerns. Planners should, where possible, ensure that more than one supermarket operates on a retail site. That would offer shoppers more choice, more opportunity to compare value and quality. Supermarkets should be challenged about unnecessary distribution costs and to demonstrate they apply safety and welfare standards not solely to British suppliers. There is a feeling that cheaper imports are subjected to less scrutiny than domestic supplies.
The government must be concerned if supermarkets exert unreasonable power over suppliers, but it can only act if it has evidence. But suppliers are understandably reluctant to press their complaints for fear of further retribution from their customers. The OFT has established codes of good practice but so far they appear to have had little impact. The supermarkets argue their own codes of practice are more stringent.
The answer could be to create a retail ombudsman, to whom suppliers could complain but maintain their confidentiality. The ombudsman could take up their complaints with supermarkets, and could use publicity to bring pressure on supermarkets.
But the suggestion that supermarkets are inherently against the public interest is wrong, and the idea that we could revive the concept of local small-shop retailing as an alternative to supermarkets is ludicrous. Much better that planners pay more attention to creating competitive sites, that quality, safety and welfare standards are applied fairly on all suppliers, and that supermarkets are made to respond to supplier complaints as readily as they already do to complaints from their customers.
{{COMMENT - GUEST }}
Farmer, consumer and environmentalist pressure groups question whether British supermarkets are operating against the public's interest. Farmers complain about their buying power, consumer groups are concerned about limited choice and high prices and environmentalists argue that national supermarkets use too much transport because intensive farming methods have undermined local shopping and, therefore local communities. Yet the OFT seems to be relaxed about supermarkets. Why?
The reality is that most British shoppers like using supermarkets because of their convenience, range of goods, perceived value and quality. For many the weekly shopping trip is exciting, and for others one-stop shopping suits their busy lifestyle. But for most, the choice of supermarket is limited  they tend to use the one that is nearest.
There is also a suspicion that UK prices are higher than those in countries like France and Germany but supermarkets argue this is because of high British property costs.
I have seen many examples of unscrupulous behaviour by supermarket buyers but this usually arises because they can exploit attractive offers from competing suppliers. Supermarkets have been fiendishly clever in ensuring their supply is in excess of their needs.
Supermarkets cast their net very wide in developing their supply side and this can lead to unnecessary distribution. One of the reasons for the excessive movement of livestock in Britain, a factor in the spread of last year's foot and mouth outbreak, is that some supermarkets have insisted on designating their own abattoirs, resulting in animals being moved from one end of the country to the other for slaughter. But if all our food was still sold through local shops, requiring small van daily delivery, the distribution cost and environmental damage would be far greater.
The government can address some of these concerns. Planners should, where possible, ensure that more than one supermarket operates on a retail site. That would offer shoppers more choice, more opportunity to compare value and quality. Supermarkets should be challenged about unnecessary distribution costs and to demonstrate they apply safety and welfare standards not solely to British suppliers. There is a feeling that cheaper imports are subjected to less scrutiny than domestic supplies.
The government must be concerned if supermarkets exert unreasonable power over suppliers, but it can only act if it has evidence. But suppliers are understandably reluctant to press their complaints for fear of further retribution from their customers. The OFT has established codes of good practice but so far they appear to have had little impact. The supermarkets argue their own codes of practice are more stringent.
The answer could be to create a retail ombudsman, to whom suppliers could complain but maintain their confidentiality. The ombudsman could take up their complaints with supermarkets, and could use publicity to bring pressure on supermarkets.
But the suggestion that supermarkets are inherently against the public interest is wrong, and the idea that we could revive the concept of local small-shop retailing as an alternative to supermarkets is ludicrous. Much better that planners pay more attention to creating competitive sites, that quality, safety and welfare standards are applied fairly on all suppliers, and that supermarkets are made to respond to supplier complaints as readily as they already do to complaints from their customers.
{{COMMENT - GUEST }}
No comments yet